# Smt. Ranjana Tandon And Others v. Bhel Educational Society And Another

- **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 278
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-01-31
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 75714 of 2010
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-ranjana-tandon-and-others-v-bhel-educational-society-and-another-42479
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri H. N. Pandey
Sri A. Mishra
Sri K.N. Mishra
S.C.
Sri Santosh Kumar

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226maintainability
of
Writ
Petitionpetitioner working in institution-run by
BHEL-claiming enforcement of 6th pay
commission-as other institution of BHEL
are getting but discrimination without
rational
basis-objection
regarding
maintainability-in view of Full Bench
decision-upheld-petition
not
maintainable.

Held: Para-11

In the aforesaid circumstances, the claim
of the petitioners cannot be enforced
through a writ petition. The petition is
therefore consigned to the record with
liberty to approach a proper forum in the
event they are able to establish that the
6th Pay Commission recommendations
are applicable and have been enforced
by the BHEL in relation to the employees
in
similarly
situated
institutions
established by the bye-laws.

Case Law discussed:
2005 (4) ESC 2265; Union of India Vs. Dilip
Kumar Pandey: Special Appeal No. 1074 of
2010, decided on 12.7.2010

## Text

278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
respondent Nos.2 and 3 to calculate the
wages payable to the petitioner from the
date of his retirement on 30.11.2006 till
1.9.2012 out of which 50% shall be paid
to the petitioner within six weeks from
today. The petitioner's length of service
would be calculated keeping in mind that
he would retire on 1.9.2012 and all post
retirement dues, etc. would be recalculated on that basis within the same
period. Arrears, if any,would be paid
accordingly within two months thereafter.
In the event, the respondents are required
to deduct income tax on the arrears of
salary, the same shall not be deducted
from the 50% of wages, but the
component toward the income tax would
be paid by the respondents to the income
tax authorities in addition to the amount
paid to the petitioner.

20. In view of the action of the
Engineer-in-Chief in not complying with
the orders of the Court, the Court imposes
a cost of Rs.20,000/- upon the respondent
No.2, i.e., the Engineer-in-Chief, who is
present in the Court for his contumacious
action, ignoring the dignity of this Court.
The said amount shall be deposited before
the Registrar General of this Court within
three weeks from today, failing which, the
Registrar General would initiate the
recovery as arrears of land revenue. The
amount so deposited will be deposited
before the High Court Legal Services
Committee.

21. The Court finds, that the Court
had directed issuance of non-bailable
warrant by its order dated 31.1.2013,
notice of which was received by the
Judicial
Magistrate,
Lucknow
on
4.2.2013. The Court is constrained to
observe that the non-bailable warrant
could not be executed when there was
ample time for the Magistrate to get the
warrant executed. The Court is of the
opinion, that a casual approach had been
adopted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
In future, the Chief Judicial Magistrate
should be cautious and ensure that the
orders of the Court are complied
immediately.

22. In view of the fact that the
respondent No.2, Engineer-in-Chief, has
appeared before the Court, no further
action is now required to be taken
pursuant to the non-bailable warrant
which was issued pursuant to the order
dated 31.1.2013.

23. Registry to supply a copy of this
order to the Registrar General within two
weeks for necessary information and
action and with a request to send the
extract of the order to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate
concerned
for
necessary
information and action. A copy of the
order be also supplied by the Registry to
the
Administrative
Judge
concerned
within the same period.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 75714 of 2010

Smt. Ranjana Tandon And Others...Petitioner
Versus
Bhel Educational Society And Another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Udayan Nandan
Sri Shashi Nandan
1 All] Smt. Ranjana Tandon And Others Vs. Bhel Educational Society and Another
279
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri H. N. Pandey
Sri A. Mishra
Sri K.N. Mishra
S.C.
Sri Santosh Kumar

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226maintainability
of
Writ
Petitionpetitioner working in institution-run by
BHEL-claiming enforcement of 6th pay
commission-as other institution of BHEL
are getting but discrimination without
rational
basis-objection
regarding
maintainability-in view of Full Bench
decision-upheld-petition
not
maintainable.

Held: Para-11

In the aforesaid circumstances, the claim
of the petitioners cannot be enforced
through a writ petition. The petition is
therefore consigned to the record with
liberty to approach a proper forum in the
event they are able to establish that the
6th Pay Commission recommendations
are applicable and have been enforced
by the BHEL in relation to the employees
in
similarly
situated
institutions
established by the bye-laws.

Case Law discussed:
2005 (4) ESC 2265; Union of India Vs. Dilip
Kumar Pandey: Special Appeal No. 1074 of
2010, decided on 12.7.2010

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Mr Udayan Nandan,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr
Santosh Kumar, holding brief of Mr K.N.
Misra, learned counsel appearing for the
Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. (in short,
BHEL) and Mr H.N. Pandey, learned
counsel
for
the
Central
Board
of
Secondary Educataion (in short, CBSE).

2. This writ petition has been filed
by
the
teachers
of
an
institution
established under a society created by
BHEL at Jhansi. They have come up
praying for enforcement of their rights to
receive the benefits arising out of the
Sixth Pay Commission Report (in short,
the Pay Commission).

3. Mr Udayan Nandan submits that
since the benefits of the Pay Commission
have been extended to the employees and
teachers of some institutions that have
been established by BHEL; as such, there
is no reason to discriminate the petitioners
in this matter. He further contends that
these benefits are even otherwise are
admissible as the institution in question is
affiliated to the CBSE, where also the
terms of affiliation mandate public sector
undertakings to extend such benefits.

4. Mr Udayan Nandan, therefore,
contends that if the respondents are bound
by the terms and conditions of affiliation
by the CBSE, the petitioenrs, who are
employees of the insitution, cannot be
denied the said benefits. Documents have
been brought on record by the petitioners
to substantiate their pleadings.

5. The respondent-BHEL has taken
a
preliminary
objection
to
the
maintainability of the writ petition on the
ground that the institution is a privatelymanaged institution and, being affiliated
to the CBSE, its employees cannot
maintain
the
writ
petition.
His
submission, therefore, in short, is that the
writ petition, being not maintainable
under Article 226 of the Constitution,
deserves to be dismissed.

6. In rejoinder Mr Udayan Nandan
submits that this issue has also to be
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
viewed from the angle that M/s. BHEL is
a Central Government public sector
undertaking having its units throughout
India where major finances are received
from
the
Central
Government.
He
contends
that
since
the
Central
Government has a deep and pervasive
control
over
BHEL;
therefore,
any
institution established by it is also of the
same category inasmuch as according to
clause 12 of the bye-laws of the society
the funds to the institution are to be made
available by the BHEL itself. The
submission, therefore, is that not only the
administrative control is there with the
respondents, but they have also the
financial control, the funds wherein are
received from the Central Government.

7. The aforesaid contentions have
been disputed by the learned counsel for
the respondents.Two counter affidavits
explaining the status of the institution
have been filed.

8. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, the preliminary objection in
the present matter is to be upheld keeping
in view the Full Bench decision of our
Court in the case of M.K. Gandhi Vs.
Director of Eduction, reported in 2005
(4) ESC 2265.

9. The issue of relating to
maintainability of such petitions came up
for consideration before this Court in the
case of Union of India Vs. Dilip Kumar
Pandey: Special Appeal No. 1074 of
2010, decided on 12.7.2010, relating to a
school established by the Indian Airforce
at Bumrauli, Allahabad. This Court held
that a writ petition of an employee of such
school would not be maintainable.

10. Apart from this, certain leverage
has been provided in the decision of this
Court in M.K. Gandhi (supra), but the
Apex Court in appeal against this Full
Bench judgement has set aside the
observations made by the Full Bench;
tberey clearly ruling that such a writ
petition would ;not be maintainable. The
said view of the Apex Court has been
reiterated and followed by a learned
single Judge in the case of Smt. Dr. Deepa
Agarwal Vs. State of U.P.: CM WP No.
29743 of 2009, decided on 11.6.2009.

11. In the aforesaid circumstances,
the claim of the petitioners cannot be
enforced through a writ petition. The
petition is therefore consigned to the
record with liberty to approach a proper
forum in the event they are able to
establish that the 6th Pay Commission
recommendations are applicable and have
been enforced by the BHEL in relation to
the employees in similarly situated
institutions established by the bye-laws.

12. The writ petition is dismissed
with the aforesaid observations.
---------